Hacker News Reader

Comment by InTheArena | Hacker News Reader

I was rear-ended in Colorado when I didn't do a rolling stop. Had a road-rage incident when the other driving was livid that I would stop under thoose circumstances.

My dad (when gowing up) was pulled over for a cop for doing a california stop in Colorado. The police officer let us off, because we had california plates.

When I got my Tesla, it was immediately evident that _no one_ travels the speed limit. They travel 5-10mph over it on anything other then a local road. or they drive way under it.

This is the problem with our mental model - FSD/Autopilot has to co-exist with human drivers - and human drivers don't follow the law. FSD/Autopilot has to exist in a world where roads do not follow standards, lines are not marked, deer jump in front of cars, people do California stops (it's called that for a reason), cars have accidents.

Computers, today, change none of that.

View on HN

> When I got my Tesla, it was immediately evident that _no one_ travels the speed limit. They travel 5-10mph over it on anything other then a local road. or they drive way under it.

It is amazing to me how angry and insane people driving on the roads can be.

I don't want to have a constant battle with every other driver on the road, I want to set cruise control, stay in my lane, and turn off on my exit when I need to. Doing this almost always triggers a tail-gaiting session and a driver becoming enraged at me ( I am not in the passing lane, for the record ).

99% of the pain in driving is other drivers deciding to just be assholes and not let me merge onto a highway for no apparent reason. Perception of "me in front me go fast" maybe?

Driving today, it is pathetic. We are all locked into our little cages and make each other miserable for no benefit.

I'm completely fed-up. There should be a system where I can send dash-cam footage for review and get a ticket mailed to their house. Don't defund the police: direct them at the asshole-fucking-drivers making everyone's life miserable while they play speed racer on the freeway.

>Doing this almost always triggers a tail-gaiting session and a driver becoming enraged at me ( I am not in the turning lane, for the record ).

Or the fast/left most lane I hope. I cruise control in middle lanes and still have people tailgate like there isn't one or two open lanes to the left of me

One of the most annoying behaviors on the section of I-5 nearest where I live are people cruise controlling in the middle lane. I try so hard to drive courteously and safely, but middle-lane cruisers force me to make exceptions to that philosophy, just so I can make it from the left side of the freeway to the right.

It also causes other traffic to resort to high speed passing on the right and left simultaneously because they are aggravated with the moving blockade.

So I have no sympathy for people who cruise control unnecessarily in the middle lane. I wish the cops would write them tickets mercilessly until they stop. Traffic on the freeway flows smoothest (and safest!) when there is a comfortable difference in speed between the lanes, predictably from slowest to fastest as you go farther left.

What's the actual problem with maintaining a constant speed in the middle lane?

This'll be my last reply on this topic, because I figure I'm talking to a brick wall. No offense intended :). I'm sorry that people don't really understand why the whole 'please stay to the right except when passing' rule makes the freeway flow much better. A line of cars bumper-to-bumper in the middle lane on cruise control causes so much congestion. But people do it because they don't want to be inconvenienced by the occasional traffic getting on the freeway.

If it were a four or five lane freeway it would be less egregious. But what it does to I-5 when it's only three lanes is really terrible.

Ah okay. Where I've been the right lane is not occasionally impeded with traffic merging and exiting, it's almost constant, so lots of people hogging the left lane actually causes blockages from people trying to enter and exit.

I also haven't noticed the middle lane blockage problem that much. It's very easy to merge when people are traveling a constant speed in a predictable lane.

I can see where your problem is coming from though. Don't feel like you're talking to a brick wall though it's the nature of the forum it looks like a bunch of people all asked the same question around the same time (I didn't see the others when I hit reply) so you're actually responding to 3 different people, not one person who keeps being unable to follow.

*lots of people hogging the right lane

you're not talking to a brick wall you're just wrong just admit it

At what percentage of the speed limit are these cruisers you’re talking about? Assuming it isn’t >10% under the speed limit, what’s your issue actually?

In the situation you’re describing, if it’s a 3-lane highway and you’re in the fastest lane you need to plan and prepare properly to start transitioning well before you want to exit. If one or two cars at constant speed are preventing you from transitioning in time, the failure is on you.

Having a constant safe speed in the middle lane sounds ideal.

> Assuming it isn’t >10% under the speed limit, what’s your issue actually?

Slower traffic keep right is a thing. You are not entitled to stay in the passing lanes just because you are going at least the speed limit. My issue is that it really mucks up the capacity of the freeway and increases the suffering for everyone using it.

> you need to plan and prepare properly to start transitioning well before you want to exit

I think I didn't make myself clear. It doesn't matter how early you plan, whether 10 seconds or 10 minutes. You will just have to put your signal on and take a spot, even if it puts you much too close to the guy in front with someone much too close to your bumper. Because the cruise controllers drive like a train, and don't care to leave any reasonable gap between them.

Really, the reason traffic sucks in so many places is because people think laws like 'slower traffic keep right' are there to infringe on their rights, when really it's because traffic engineers have studied how traffic flows and made regulations to encourage it to be safe and as little congested as possible.

The middle lane is for traveling at the speed limit. The left lane is for passing. The right lane is for merging and driving slowly.

I'll just go ahead and link you to a drivers ed page since apparently you need to learn how the roads actually work: https://driversed.com/driving-information/driving-techniques...

If you can see that’s the case, what are you even doing in the left lane? Sounds like you should just get in line in the middle with everyone else.

> You will just have to put your signal on and take a spot, even if it puts you much too close to the guy in front

It’s physically impossible to be forced to be too close to the car in front. Keep a safe distance, slowing down slightly if you need to.

i see this thread has really gotten active with you and i mostly agree with it, but I didn't see anyone pointing out your description of cruise controlled cars being a blockade in the middle. I definitely don't see it that way with my adaptive cruise control (i never ever use regular cruise control anymore). Even at the closest follow distance setting, I am always about 2 cars distance from the one i am following. I have only ever used my one particular adaptive cruise control (subaru impreza) so I am not sure if other car models tend to follow closer and block the ability to change lanes.

>You will just have to put your signal on and take a spot, even if it puts you much too close to the guy in front with someone much too close to your bumper

This description makes me think you're talking about stop and go traffic, or at least where the entire highway is mostly saturated. At that point I hardly think any one particular lane is going faster/slower than the rest but that could be wrong. In this case though, I don't use cruise control because I mentally switch over to the mode of "gas and brake the least possible" to even the flow of traffic and not contribute to brake snakes.

edit: oh i see in some other comments you're talking about 3 lane i-5, I have only been on mostly 2 lane sections of i-5 where it's just trucks on the right and people waiting in a line to pass said trucks on the left... but three lanes I haven't had any issues

I’m confused. I usually like to cruise control in the middle lane (at around 3-5 over the speed limit); how does this cause problems for you?

If I were to stay in the right lane I’d be stuck going 5-10 under because of all the semis & constantly having to dodge merging traffic. If I stayed in the left lane I’d piss off everyone who wants to go 20 over. This seems to be how most people drive, and it achieves your graduated-speed-difference standard: the right lane is for semis & getting on and off, the middle lane is for most traffic traveling at a comfortable speed, and the left lane is for passing.

What would you propose I do differently?

> I’m confused. I usually like to cruise control in the middle lane (at around 3-5 over the speed limit); how does this cause problems for you?

If it were one car, it would be a minor annoyance, at worst. But this style of driving is really popular, so it's a steady line of cars cruising the middle lane in a line. It divides the freeway into two one lane roads, bottlenecking traffic and making it difficult for people who are in the left lane to get to the right in order to take their exit.

It may be that the dynamics are different in your area. Between Portland and Salem, Oregon, the exits are several miles apart so there's not much merging traffic.

> What would you propose I do differently?

In my experience the best freeway experience is when people pass only on the left, and there is enough of a speed differential between lanes that when you need to change lanes you can always find a spot you fit in. It gets aggravating when traffic is pacing, especially at high speeds, because it makes it a lot tougher to make comfortable lane movements. It's worse when the left lane is filled with cruisers, because they always bunch up and follow each other with a 1-second separation, making lane switching hard (and when you turn your signal on, at least half of them will just speed up to make sure the gap is even tighter).

I'm not going to tell you how I think you should drive. There are a lot of factors that are not necessarily the same between where I drive and where you drive. But I can tell you that the dynamics on this section of I-5 up here are just awful. It's a well known local phenomenon, everyone I've ever ridden with through that section of I-5 comments on how terrible the traffic gets with passing on the right, left, and locked up down the center.

Thanks for clarifying! I frequently drive that same stretch between Portland and Salem. It can definitely a really annoying drive, especially when there's congestion.

The problem with staying in the right lane for any period of time is all the semi traffic. It is in my experience very rare for the right lane to be going at or above the speed limit; realistically, if I stay in the middle lane I am always passing people in the right lane. I will of course get over if the right lane is clear and traffic behind me wants to pass, but this doesn't happen often. I do get passed on the right occasionally, but only by aggressive drivers who use the 5-second gaps between semis to weave across the road -- not by the normal flow of right lane traffic.

I share your frustration with the difficulty of changing lanes, especially in congestion. However, I would argue this is more of an issue with people following too close than using the wrong lanes -- if the right lane was a solid wall of cars, you wouldn't be able to get in there either. In any case, I usually don't have too much trouble if I give myself a few miles before my exit to get over -- though sometimes that can require forcing my way into an annoyingly small gap.

That all being said, I do agree that there are a few spots where the lane arrangements can become really dangerous, especially during congestion. For instance: the first few miles of I-205 northbound near Tualatin/West Linn, the weird bridge in Oregon City and just about anywhere on or near OR-217.

This is exactly my point, rootusrootus. You string words together, but you do not have a coherent point on how roads should work.

So how the fuck am I supposed to drive to please you? Does everyone need to drive at a reasonable pace, in their proper lane? Or do they need to drive 10 miles over the speed limit trying to go as fast as possible and pass the person in front of you?Oh, should we also have a fucking neural uplink into your brain to make sure you don't have to waste prescious time signaling to get into the lane everyone is SUPPOSED to drive in for long distances?

There is going to be unpleasantness driving. Sometimes car go slow. Try not to shit your pants when you can't swerve into whatever lane you need to be in.

> I try so hard to drive courteously and safely

You don’t need to try that hard. It isn’t that much effort. Just accept the fact that going +5-10mph will hardly save 5-10 mins on a 100 mile drive but going near speed limit (+ 2 to 5 mph) will result in everyone having a safe and easy drive.

People trying “hard” to drive safe are the most dangerous on roads as they think they are constantly changing lanes and going around others for safety reasons but actually result in more danger and annoyance for everyone else.

> My dad (when gowing up) was pulled over for a cop for doing a california stop in Colorado. The police officer let us off, because we had california plates.

I'm confused. A "California Stop" isn't even legal in California.

Also I'm pretty sure lots of places say "{somePlace} Stop" where somePlace is some nearby place known for supposedly having bad drivers.

We say "California stop" or "California roll" even way out here in Texas.

I am also more familiar with the term "california stop" than "rolling stop", and I was taught it by my parents who have never lived west of Texas. Looks like this admonition did a California stop all the way to the east coast.

I don't disagree. It was the comment about the California plate - almost like it was supposed to validate the practice - that I don't understand.

I commented as I have a concern that an uneducated reader may walk away with the idea that it's legal in that state. It most certainly is not.

Apparently, though, Idaho does have some provision for bicyclists and rolling through stop signs. So, there you go - an "Idaho Stop" is a thing for any potential bicyclists in Idaho.

> Idaho does have some provision for bicyclists and rolling through stop signs.

As does Oregon. I would guess there are others, too.

Idaho stop?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

"California Stop" is an insult, implying that people drive badly in California.

OK? It’s also a common term for it.

A good example of a “California Comment” right here

It's not, but approximately everybody does it. I've even seen cops do it. Once, I sat at a stop sign for a while, just to see if I could observe anybody actually stop. Nobody did.

I've done this a few times. Almost no one stops, unless they're looking at their phone.

> A "California Stop" isn't even legal in California.

I'm informed that these are actually legal as long as you don't disrespect the police by doing it in front of them. It's the same way that going slightly over the speed limit on freeways is legal as long as you don't insult the police by passing them.

There's a difference between legal and enforced.

Going over the speed limit is not legal, but no officer will pull you over at +1, unless you piss them off for some other reason, like by being black in a white community, for example. Racial biases aside, this is actually a really good thing. If every law was enforced perfectly today, everyone would be arrested, fined, or jailed tomorrow.

> There's a difference between legal and enforced.

I think the parent knows that, and was being a bit tongue-in-cheek ;)

realistically everywhere on I-5 between Seattle and the border, people do +5 over, and often 10 over. I'd wager it's near impossible to get pulled over for doing 65 in the 60 zone north of Seattle, and when the speed limit changes to 70, for doing 75 in the 70 zone on cruise control.

Usually when I have cruise control set to exactly 75 and I'm in the right lane, I'm very often passed by people who are probably doing 80 to 82 mph.

In New York, the highway norm is 13-15 over for the "I want to go fast but not get a ticket" crowd. (i.e. 80 in a 65).

AFAICT, the reason is that there's a big jump in the median fine if you're going >15mph over the speed limit vs <= 15mph over. Economically-speaking, it's not worth the police officer's time to pull somebody over who's "merely" 10 over, because somebody going 16+ over will appear in a few more minutes of waiting.

Interestingly, the state website says the official "maximum" fine bump occurs at 11+ mph over. I suspect they wait for 15mph to rule out the plausible cover stories "I was only going that fast to overtake the other car" or "new here, I didn't realize the incline was so sharply downhill with nobody in front of me".

You probably wouldn't get pulled over for going 80-82 in Washington (i.e. they people passing you probably have their cruise controls set for 80), but it might be less enjoyable of a drive. You have to pay more frequent, closer attention, because you're overtaking people more frequently.

Ironically, California dives deep into "low fines for speeds under 15 over". the under-15-over fine base is a meager $35! For 16-25, it jumps to $70, which is still paltry.

Those California fees aren't correct. Or at least, don't include most of the fees assessed when you get a citation for speeding.

It's more like $300-800 depending on how much you are over the limit. There's a bunch of extra fees they toss in.

Googling it doesn't bring up any kind of official source, but several websites for law firms that corroborate that range.

https://www.occourts.org/directory/collections/How_is_Your_F...

Yeah, it's "California Legal".

> I'm informed that these are actually legal as long as you don't disrespect the police by doing it in front of them. It's the same way that going slightly over the speed limit on freeways is legal as long as you don't insult the police by passing them.

You and I have a very different view of what makes something legal.

Who knows where these things come from.

Here in Georgia I've heard people call it a "Texas Turn Off" when someone dives for the exit from the center lane of the highway.

At least in Houston there are some insane highway intersections where that happens very often.

Probably commentary on the road designs with absurd and massive interchanges.

Yeah; 15 years ago got a ticket for (allegedly; I still maintain that I came to a full stop) doing a California Stop in California.

Many years ago had to do traffic school in california. Instructor took us out of class to go watch people at a four-way stop sign. Nobody stopped. We even got to watch a cop not stop.

One thing I'd like modern cars to implement, given that they're supposedly close to self-driving, is to cap your speed at some percentage above the speed limit.

There is no reason why a driver should be capable of driving the car 130 km/h in an 80 km/h zone.

I've always wanted a slightly less draconian version of this- a speed limit setting that makes the throttle pedal harder to push down once you've hit the a given speed. Sort of like a natural cruise control. This would keep you from accidentally creeping up over the limit, which is certainly something that I do, but still allow you to go faster if you make the conscious choice.

Mercedes had a version of this called a "haptic pedal" in their previous gen C-Class PHEV. It would provide a small bump of resistance before you engaged the gas engine. It also would gently push back when it saw the car ahead was slowing down, to encourage efficient coasting. A quick search shows they spread it to a few other cars.

Good luck passing that law when we can't even gather political will to put in average speed cameras in most cities, which would also solve speeding without needing self driving.

British Columbia once had radar cameras on the highways. Instead of getting pulled over for speeding, you’d get a ticket in the mail. People hated it and consequently we elected a thoroughly corrupt government on the promise to rescind the practice.

But for a while there we all drove at around the same speed, within about 10% of the posted limit, and it was fucking glorious. It was so much less stressful: very little passing of one another, fewer idjits weaving in and out, left turns off the highway less of a guessing game, fewer accidents … it was just fantastic when most everyone did the same speed.

Of course now we’re worse off than ever, because without cameras the cops essentially gave up enforcing speed limits and now there’s an over 50% difference in speed between the slower and faster vehicles.

Both emergency situations exist & also cars aren't that infallible, so there would need to be a way to override such a system or disable it. Otherwise imagine the chaos of a track day or autocross when someone's car suddenly thinks they are on the road next to the track and slams on the brakes...

For every suggestion to curb the car problems of society, there will always be someone bringing up edge cases to defend status quo.

How many meters are done on a track each year, compared to public roads? I'd wager most people have never even set foot on a track. Cases like that should have absolutely no bearing on policy making.

And emergency is always used as am excuse as well to not limit car use or rebuild streets. If anything, getting rid of traffic means that it's now easier for them to get to where they are going. Same for disabled people. It's always people shouting "you can't ban cars here, think of the disabled", when the truth is that getting rid of most of the cars and building better infrastructure would make their day easier.

I think the issue of "always bringing up edge cases" is meant to illustrate that a LOT can go wrong with some of these hard and fast rules. It is why humans are simultaneously great and terrible at driving. One slightly bad driver can be accounted for by several slightly better drivers navigating around the bad one's behavior. This smooth "self-correction" on the roadway leads to lots of rule breaking but also probably saves a lot of time/lives by allowing individual humans to navigate a situation (especially since lots of people forget the exact rules of the road...ex. do you yield in a turning situation or not, what exceptions would you not yield?)

However, I really do like your last point, the easiest way to solve is just remove the cars from as much of the equation and introduce transit that follows rules (trains, busses -higher compliance with road rules perhaps) and let humans navigate the last meter themselves

> I think the issue of "always bringing up edge cases" is meant to illustrate that a LOT can go wrong with some of these hard and fast rules.

This makes more sense as an objection in a vacuum than it does in the reality where the alternative is that speeding is a big problem within cities. We don't have to solve every edge case. We just need the edge cases to be less of an issue than speeding already is. And that's a much easier bar.

Asking, "what if we do this?" is fine, but one should also always consider, "what if we don't?"

But that is the point... if we don't do something here, humans can continue to take their own actions to resolve the situation (speed up with traffic or move to the right or choose an alternate route). That level of flexibility allows for each person to make the choice they want and feel comfortable with (as opposed to the car making a decision for you)

Let's be clear here that "letting the car make the decision for you" in context means "you can't go as fast as you want in an urban area because the car will prevent it." As in, you can't drive many multiples of the speed limit in urbanized areas packed with buildings and pedestrians and other cars. The car should prevent that in practically all cases. The car does know that that's a good idea in practically every conceivable case. A human driver who thinks they should drive many multiples of the speed limit in an urban area is wrong.

It's so manifestly wrong that it shouldn't even be technically possible. There's no good reason to manufacture a car that responds so stupidly to such a dangerous and irresponsible input.

And when the day finally comes that the conditions are just right so that a driver dies attempting to flee an avalanche because this tech prevented them from escaping at speed, we will put a lone checkmark in the "lives lost to this technology" column that's adjacent to a "lives saved" file 10 miles long.

If I could be permitted just a little bit of levity: https://twitter.com/dril/status/464802196060917762?lang=en

> I think the issue of "always bringing up edge cases" is meant to illustrate that a LOT can go wrong with some of these hard and fast rules.

There's a story out there by Cory Doctorow about self driving cars. Car Wars - https://craphound.com/news/2016/11/23/car-wars-a-dystopian-s...

Its no longer accessible on the site... but you can find it on wayback. https://web.archive.org/web/20190225032830/https://this.deak... (though the formatting in the twitter feed like section is a bit weird)

The part that is most applicable to this begins at "But it was more complicated than just biased data".

More often is people trying to implement solutions without thinking the problem through to the end.

Like trying to ban the sale of combustion engines without having a robust charging infrastructure. Or making parking in a downtown area a nightmare without improving the public transit infrastructure.

Or in this case, trying to implement maximum speeds in cars when the technology (GPS? Accurate speed limit maps? Extra sensors on cars and roads?) isn't good enough or isn't there.

> How many meters are done on a track each year, compared to public roads? I'd wager most people have never even set foot on a track. Cases like that should have absolutely no bearing on policy making.

It absolutely should have a bearing as you are essentially arguing that those cases you should be illegal & banned. You can't ban something and then argue that "well, not many people were doing it anyway, so we can ignore it even though we're banning it."

Your policy impacts it, therefore your policy must account for it. Even if that account is to decide that the impact is justified, you are making significant changes to things outside of your stated & claimed goal.

> And emergency is always used as am excuse as well to not limit car use or rebuild streets.

I did no such thing?

All I said is there needs to be an 'off' switch, just like there is for traction control in the majority of vehicles today. The overwhelming majority of people leave it enabled (as that's the default), and the world is better. Rules don't need to be black & white to have broad societal improvements.

> It's always people shouting "you can't ban cars here, think of the disabled", when the truth is that getting rid of most of the cars and building better infrastructure would make their day easier.

Except you were arguing that cars should be banned for uses outside of being on the road as part of normal traffic. As in, your "rule" wasn't improving your hypothetical excuse situation here. It was instead making it the only legal usage of a vehicle, to compete with mass transit.

If you gathered up every single one of these edge cases and multiplied them by 10 you wouldn't get anywhere near the actually-existing, non-hypothetical, measurable problem of speeding.

So, sure, we should talk about edge cases and people who implement this technology should work on them, but even if they didn't, the tech would still be a good idea given fairly pedestrian calculations of the relevant tradeoffs.

And even if we accept your premise that the edge cases are a big deal, the solution presents itself quite readily: let there be an override with serious consequences for frivolously engaging it. Simple.

First I'd need to be convinced that speed is the problem. How about we work on road design before we starting trying to second guess drivers?

Even then I'd probably still vote against whichever politician decided it was a good idea.

Why? Is it some kind of human right to endanger others with reckless driving?

That's begging the question, how did you decide that 130 kph was reckless?

Tesla supports setting a speed over/under current area's speed limit (not sure if it's disabled in certain jurisdictions - worked for me both in California and Florida)

So, you're entirely removing the option of "escape" from people caught in bad situations then. I'm not sure that's wise. Further, you'd have to ask, how hard would it be to disable that? Then, given that some users will have this disabled, how does that impact the roadway as a whole?

Tell me: how many "escapes" will this stop, compared to the amount of lifes it otherwise would save? Isn't the tradeoff worth it, you think..?

I believe there is a push in Europe to include this in cars based on computer vision. It was pitched as "not above speed limit". I would at least hope it is "not above speed limit for long" or have some form of slack.

I believe that this is one of the worst ideas about modern cars I have ever heard.

It's almost equivalent to saying that we should replace all metal knives in kitchens with plastic knives. "There is no reason why a person should be able to use a metal knife to hurt someone else."

Some of the problems with your idea : 1) A lot of places don't have speed signs - then should we allow people to drive 130 in 80 zone? 2) Outdated / incorrect signs - not every place on the planet has properly maintained roads. 3) AI mistake - if an AI mistake leads a car to read 50 kmph as 30 kmph, what then? Should the driver suffer? 4) Emergencies - have you ever been in one? Imagine if your car led to someone's death because you didn't trust people with their own car 5) Empty roads - if you have an empty road in front of you, you can go 110-120 in 80 zone. This practice is followed at every single place on the planet. etc. etc.

You know the worst part about your idea? It's so insane that it actually will be implemented in the next 5-10 years. That's the part I hate the most. Bad ideas are not a problem, but actually implementing them is.

All it takes is 1 exec in Tesla who thinks like you or who has had a loved one die by overspeeding.

Any opposition to your idea can be crushed by saying "do you want people to die by overspeeding"?

We won't ban alcohol, but we want to ban overspeeding. The irony!

You can buy metal kitchen knives in most parts of the world but you may not be allowed to walk around town pointing them at people, and you may not be able to buy a claymore even if it is just for cutting cheese or opening letters. And speed limits can be >60mph even when 30-40 may be dangerous. So I don’t really understand what your analogy is, because in the real world there are reasonable restrictions on things, and where the proposed restriction still allows things that are unsafe.

You missed the point of my analogy. You CAN point your knife at anyone and even attack with it. You will be punished for it. That's the point.

The knife is not going to stop you from pointing it at someone. If we want car to force people to not overspeed, perhaps we should replace metal knives to plastic ones to prevent people attacking other people with it.

My entire point is that the responsibility to drive safely should be on the driver. The car should not force anything.

Also, you should read the rest of my answer to see why I think it's a really bad idea.

In 2020, the US had 1,700 deaths caused by knives and other cutting instruments[1] and 38,000 deaths from cars[2]. Cars clearly need more safety regulation than knives.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-traffic-deaths-jump-105-...

1) in my country the default is 80 km/h when no sign. Use that, then. Like seriously, do you think people today think "wow, no sign, I can drive 200"??

2) a sign isn't outdated, it's by definition the limit

3) so what? No one gets hurt by someone driving a bit slower for a short stretch.

4) if you care so much about emergencies, shouldn't you be for this policy? Tens of thousands die each year in traffic accidents, isn't that worth solving vs some obscure edge case that might perhaps sometime cost someone their life??

5) no, follow the speed limit. You're the kind of driver that makes this kind of law necessary. It doesn't matter that the road ahead is empty, if you misjudge the next turn and kill someone. What a crazy, selfish and entitled attitude you have.

> All it takes is 1 exec in Tesla who thinks like you or who has had a loved one die by overspeeding.

Your lack if empathy is astonishing. This happens all the time, and is why it should be implemented.

> and human drivers don't follow the law.

You need to design the road to the speed you want, not the other way around like it mostly happens in some countries. That solves quite a lot of problems.

I thought my city’s potholes were due to poor maintenance when it turns out they’re a traffic calming device!

I think it’s reasonable to say “nobody” follows all the rules of the rules of the road. The ones you deem important enough to rigorously follow come down to local social dynamics/norms more than written law.

I’m from Colorado and drivers there are much tamer than the Bay Area - and rightly so! Traffic conditions in SF/peninsula (where I live now) are way more hectic & dense than Colorado. It’s almost weird to expect uniformity across all regions

I don't think it's that weird to expect people who are licensed and tested on the rules of the road to actually follow them. Granted, if you do have that expectation, you'll be disappointed approximately 100% of the time, but I don't think the expectation itself is that weird.

The more insidious problem is that much of this is by design. Legislators know that people don't obey the speed limits. Police officers too. It just gives them license to stop and / or charge whomever they please. It is an obvious and vulgar workaround to undermine the principle of equal protection.

Colorado highways seem to have a weird thing I haven't seen elsewhere. The right lane is consistently going ~10mph below the speed limit while the left lane goes ~10mph over. Any and all middle lanes are also a bit of a crapshoot.

Did you notice the same behavior before Marijuana was legalized?

In my experience in Colorado, the right lane is usually empty and it's often easier to go faster than traffic in the right lane (at least on sections of freeway without exits close together). The left lane is usually traveling at least 20mph faster than the limit (on I-25 anyway). 85mph in a 65mph zone is the norm.

Is no-one else bothered that the term "rolling stop" is an obvious oxymoron?

It's actually called a "California coast". Or if you're from the east coast, a "Philly roll".

Thank you, this is one of the few insightful comments I see here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com